The Duran Podcast
NATO & Ukraine Inc. Capture Chasov Yar and win war
All right, Alexander. Let's talk about what is going on in Ukraine. Let's focus on some statements coming out of NATO and the statements from NATO, follow the Russian Foreign Ministry, we're called in the UK ambassador and the French ambassador and they issued ultimatums to both of those ambassadors. This also follows on the announcement from the Russian Ministry of Defense that Russia will be conducting a tactical nuclear drills. So we had all of this escalation a couple of days ago. And now it looks like we have a de-escalation, at least that's how it looks. I do want to say that we still have statements coming out of specifically Lithuania, I would say. Lithuania is saying let's send trainers into Ukraine, both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister and the Foreign Minister in UK media. They gave interviews to the Financial Times and to the Guardian, and they said that trainers should be sent to Ukraine, and they support the plans of Makoro and Cameron. And we also have a statement from Donald Tusk, where he admitted that there are troops in Ukraine, he said they're engineers and advisors and stuff like that. So we do have some countries which are still talking up, escalation, but most of the rhetoric coming out of the collective western NATO is moving towards de-escalation. What are your thoughts? Absolutely, and I think decisively so. Notice that Makoro himself has been saying an awful lot less over the last few days. He's been avoiding this subject. And the same is true about the British government. The British government, what they've done is something completely different. They haven't really commented about this. They haven't really discussed the fact that their ambassador was called into the Russian Foreign Ministry, and they certainly haven't. They've responded to the absolutely explicit Russian threats to launch missile strikes at British military installations around the world, including in Britain itself. What they've done instead is that they've expelled the Russian defence attach and stripped diplomatic status from certain Russian embassy buildings. So it's the kind of thing governments do when they feel under pressure, when they feel that they've been basically humiliated and made to look little, and they want to show to the other side. Well, actually, we're still here. We're not going to let ourselves be run over and they also want to reassure their friends and allies that we're still here and we're still pushing back. So the British, the French, very, very quiet, the Americans, very, very quiet. The people who are making the running at the moment is NATO, the NATO bureaucracy, Stoltenberg, and he's come out and he's spoken quite straightforwardly. It clearly, again, no NATO troops on the ground. We've heard lots of comments from Italy. I get the sense there's been a major sea change of policy in Italy that the Maloney government has now, I think, finally understood how dangerous the situation is. And I think they've already sensed that Italian public opinion is solidly opposed to further escalation in this conflict with Russia. Anyway, the Italian government has repeatedly made clear its strong disagreement with the plans, the proposals to send troops to Ukraine. And we now have this really, I think, very important article in Corriere de la Sarah. Now, this is the most important newspaper in Italy. It's the closest analogue you have to, you know, an Italian newspaper of record. Perhaps putting it a bit strongly, but it's an important newspaper, and they've come up with a story that at the summit meeting in July, NATO is going to publish a written statement, which explicitly rules out sending NATO troops to Ukraine. And that will be bundled in with the proposal that the management, the future management of arms deliveries from the West to Ukraine should be transferred from the United States to NATO itself. Now, I have to say, we haven't yet had formal corroboration from anybody about this story, but neither have we had denials. And I think it's true. I think it makes complete sense. It's consistent with other things we're seeing that Biden himself or rather the administration now wants to refocus away from Ukraine towards domestic policy that they're trying to shuffle it off, basically to the Europeans, which means to NATO. But we've seen the Germans now buying arms, high mass missiles, launchers, specifically from the United States. Remember, I was always saying that this whole story about the impossibility of the United States delivering weapons to Ukraine because the Republicans were holding up and got things in Congress made no sense if the Europeans wanted to buy arms from the United States. And nothing prevented them doing so and then all the money they needed. Well, the Germans have just done that. So, I mean, not the huge scale, but three high mass launchers that are buying from the US for Ukraine, which is perhaps a taster of things to come. And then overall, I think that they're now as clearly as clearly as they came to Moscow that look we've heard what you said, we're not going to send troops to Ukraine, Macron's been put back in his box. These dangerous ideas that we were floating a few days ago, a few weeks ago. They're not going to happen, and basically we want to bring the situation back under control. So I think what's happened, the Russians called the West's bluff, and the West is now in full retreat. And I think, by the way, that signals the eventual end of project Ukraine, because we'll come to the situation or the front lines shortly, but I mean it's not clear that Ukraine is being smashed. Without NATO troops, it cannot win. I think everybody sees that. I think at some point, when saying the summer, it dawns on the Ukrainians, that NATO is not going to come to the rescue. I think you're going to see a major collapse in Ukrainian morale. And anyway, one way or the other, the Russians now have a clear pathway to win. I think they've called them bluff. And I think that's the end of it. I don't think anybody wants to be in a nuclear war. And I think that a critical mess of European states are solidly opposed to any direct military intervention in Ukraine. And I think even the Biden administration understands that in the United States public opinion is enormously strong against it. But at least during the election, the Biden White House understands that they can't escalate in Ukraine, at least until November 2024. If Biden wins the election, God help us. We could see a massive escalation. And with Macron, you never know what Macron said today. He says, no, no French troops in Ukraine. But tomorrow he might say French troops in Ukraine. But I think everyone's starting to understand that Macron is just this is this is this is the way he is. And he just stops every every other week he's flip-flopping in his opinion. But but I think the main point is that if if France was to go into Ukraine, then it looks like it would just be France and there were no and there would not be any possibility of NATO coming to France's rescue if something goes wrong. That's going to be made very clear at the summit in July. Macron, if you go into Ukraine and things go horrifically wrong, don't expect NATO to come and bail you out. I agree with that. The one thing I must add, though, is that if NATO actually publishes a written statement of policy statement ruling out the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine, then it will be politically very damaging for the Biden administration at any point, even after its reelection, to go back on that. I mean, they will have made a pledge in effect to the American people before the election that they wouldn't do this. And on occasions when US presidents have been elected on promises that they would not take the United States into a war and then have broken that promise afterwards. Well, it has gone very badly for them. So I agree, we're dealing with a very dangerous administration that escalates whenever it can, but this would be a significant break. If, of course, it happens. I mean, it hasn't, it hasn't happened yet. For the record, I think that, yeah, it's gone. No, no, I was just going to ask you. I mean, it would be a break, but you aren't also dealing with Biden. So, so maybe the powers that be would say, who cares if Biden breaks a promise because. Well, we don't care about him. Anyway, he's, this is his final term and, you know, we're done with him anyway. So I mean, they would have that kind of out that exit as far as breaking a promise. You know, we promise not to go to war, but Biden has broken that promise book. You know, who cares about Biden. No, I mean, I agree. He's the perfect scapegoat. He is the perfect scapegoat. They can ditch it. They can do all kinds of things, but they would still, I think, be major political difficulties and turmoil in the US if they did this. I mean, they could do it. They might do it. They're the kind of people who probably would do it if they could. All I am saying is that a written statement is going to make you just that bit more difficult. And it's now, it's now a pledge to the American people, which of course most people in the United States are not going to take much notice off at the moment. The United States, the situation where the United States is indeed drifting towards the war. Well, there's the Marjorie Taylor Greens and the masses and people like that, they'll be up jumping around them and be pointing this out. And it will cause it will cause political damage. So now I agree, but you know, nonetheless, this is an important, important step. Now, in all other respects, as I said, a climb down with a retreat. And if this thing really happens in July, if we do get this statement, then realistically, we're not going to get French troops sent to Ukraine openly and officially in the way that macro has been talking about. Because there is no way that any of the major countries, NATO countries, France, Italy, Britain, Spain, Germany, all of the United States are going to send troops to Ukraine without NATO backing. I mean, it's just not happening. So I think that's, I think that's basically closes down that story, at least at the moment. The Lithuanianians are clearly very unhappy, because they want basically born with Russia. I mean, it seems incredible, but they do. The Poles Radek Sikorski, a notable hardliner. He, again, talks about the fact that there's already troops there, which we all know, an interesting admission, by the way. But again, I don't think we should worry too much about what he says, as I understand it, in Poland itself, opinion now is running very strongly against this idea also. Yeah, I know it's no surprise that there are troops in Ukraine from from NATO from the collective West, call them mercenaries, call them, call them whatever you want, but everyone understands that they're troops but they're not there in the capacity as NATO to go to war. And well, we'll wait and see in July, what happens. My point with my current is that from from today until July, mark it on me flip flop a couple of times. It's that that's mark it on, right. But you know the interesting part about it. Absolutely, absolutely. I just say I would not be surprised if over the next few weeks he goes completely now to the opposite extreme and starts presenting himself as the mediator. He's going to try and broke a peace agreement with Putin. I mean, this is entirely like macro. I mean, the one thing macro cannot bear is not to be at the center of attention. So he has to be the big player. You can't be the tough guy, the war leader. He's going to be the great peacemaker. Don't take it seriously if it ever comes, but say, you know, I would not be surprised if that's what he does now. But before we get to what's happening on the front lines. And I think we do have to talk about what's happening in Harkov, because there are a lot of reports saying that something big is about to take place in Harkov, I don't know. But before we get to that, the possibility of Project Ukraine being administered by NATO, because that's what we're talking about here. That's what the Italian media is reporting. And I was talked about actually a couple of months ago as well, that the United States would like to remove the management of Project Ukraine away from from Ramstein air base the contact group that meets every so often in Germany. They would like to remove the management of Project Ukraine from there and put it put it under NATO. And I think that that this institutionalizes Project Ukraine is that is that the correct word to send me this like another revenue stream that NATO can add. Actually, you know, I think, let me go back to your to your comment about Project Ukraine, effectively collapsing being smashed. Yes, Ukraine, I would rephrase it and say Ukraine is being smashed, and it's going to collapse if it's if this decision does take place in July. But it feels like Project Ukraine will remain a project for NATO for the long term. With Ukraine being I don't know, whatever Ukraine is going to be, whether it's the Ukraine we see now, whether it's Ukraine that's confined to the West, whether it's Ukraine with a government in exile. It seems like Project Ukraine is going to be a permanent part of NATO's revenue stream. Yes, if in July, they do decide to put the management completely under NATO. Yes, that's exactly what it's going to be. Now, there's there's lots of things one can say about this plan. The first is that it is another way for the Biden administration to now try and distance itself from this disaster. They can say, well, look, this isn't anything to do with us really, it was we did provide quite a lot of support and we were involved, but, you know, in the end, it's, you know, we weren't hands on, we weren't in charge. When everything when we were doing things, we held it all together, but, you know, we passed it on to NATO. It all falls apart now. Well, that's really the fault of Stontenberg and the Europeans and the people in NATO. You know, it's, it's, it's not us. That's the first thing. The second is, it's exactly what you said. And this is the main part of it. In fact, it's, I mean, the first is politics. But the second is the future. If you do something bureaucratically, and I speak again as somebody who's worked in government bureaucracies, so I know about this. If you do something bureaucratically, you create, if you open up an office, which is they going to do in NATO, you know, a NATO procurement office for Ukraine. If you set up a whole team of people against staff, employees, secretaries, all that kind of thing, not set, when I say I'm a secretary, I mean, people who don't be, I mean, you know, assistant secretaries, top officials, people are back going. That's going to last forever. It always does. It's, it's going to just become another part of the bureaucratic machine in NATO in Brussels. And eventually some important or important sounding person is going to be appointed to it some failed politician from some European country who's going to use this to make him or herself seem important. They'll be appearing on all talk shows. They'll be going on to the media all the time. And, of course, they'll be lobbying for money. The money will come because, of course, it always does because there's always money for NATO. And the weapons too, by the way, I mean, even if even if there's no Ukraine, you know, you can always set up a government in exile, and you can set up an army in exile as well. Remember, you can do that too. That happened quite a lot in the Second World War, so they might, you know, invoke all of that. One way or the other, you're now going to create a permanent institution within NATO, which will keep this thing going indefinitely, independently, by the way, or whatever any possible president in the United States wants to do. So, if we get a president, maybe let's call him Donald Trump, who wants to shut down Project Ukraine. Well, he can't just shut down Project Ukraine because Project Ukraine is a NATO project. Now, not an US project. So you can't just switch off or close down any office in Washington, which is difficult to do anyway, because his jurisdiction doesn't extend to Brussels. So, you see, it becomes impossible for a future president to just switch this off and provide it. There's a critical mass of countries in Europe, which want to keep this thing going, which there will be, and provided the bureaucracy itself in Brussels continues to exist, and nobody's planning to close it down. This will go on forever. That's the intention. So we might not have a Ukraine. Every millimeter of Ukrainian territory might be occupied, but Project Ukraine, the Phantom Project Ukraine would continue. It would have its office. It would have its representatives in Brussels. They would be lazy with a new office that's being set up in Brussels. The contracts would still go out. The money would still be transferred. The whole thing would continue. NGOs around it. Everything. Everything. Everything. And they've now got a money stream sorted out, because they haven't seized the capital of the, or they're not going to seize the capital as it turns out of the Russian frozen assets because they've been told by the lawyers don't even think about doing that. They have apparently all agreed that they will seize the interest that those frozen assets generate. So that's said to be around $3 billion a year. And that's a fair amount of money to keep going, to keep this thing running. So you've got the seed money, if you like, every year. Nice little revenue stream. Three, three to five billion dollars or euros a year, channeling its way through that you can, as you correctly say, rechannel to the NGOs and all of that. And which, you know, you're not actually having to get appropriations through Congress to agree to. And of course, it won't just be that money, because all your European friends will chip in. And then you'll get all the extra funding through the other various projects that the United States always runs. And they'll be able to say, well, we need to do that, because we need to keep the flame of Ukraine burning, you know, the flag flying and all of that. So there are lots of money will continue out of this is going to go on forever. It's going to be part of the new EU NATO bureaucratic landscape. It's quite quite clever when you think about it, huh? Well, it's the same bureaucrats come up with. I've seen it. Yeah, but I mean, I mean, it's not you here. Yeah, I know, but, but this is a way for them to continue to make money off of a project Ukraine, which they have been making money off of for the last 15 years, which was one of their main concerns with Ukraine. I mean, one of the big concerns that they had with Ukraine and with Russia going into Ukraine was the fear that that this country where all of these, these globalists and these political elites were making so much money off of that no one really had any clue about that this thing would go away, and that concerned them. But now it looks like they figured out a way to keep it going. Yeah, as I said, and they've even sorted out a money stream for it, which won't be, won't be susceptible to political leaders simply switching off because again, as it's not authorized by European by Western parliaments. It's, it can be kept going indefinitely. Okay, so let's talk about what's happening on the front lines, and let's, maybe we start with with hot because there's a lot of, a lot of talk about some some Russian advance in hot Gulf and imminent Russian advance and hot Gulf which is about to take place. We don't know if that's the case, and I think most of these reports are coming from Ukraine military sources, but yes, a lot of people are talking about it and there is a lot of activity happening in the hot Gulf region. So what's, what's going on? You know, I've, I've blown hot and cold about this kind of offensive. There've been times and I thought it was coming and others when I thought it wasn't. I, I know I'm starting to become more skeptical again, because the Ukrainians, even as they're telling us this morning about Russian attacks and Russian advances and about various villages captured, which by the way, other sources in Russia are contradicting. They're saying nothing like this is actually happening on the border. Anyway, the Ukrainians are telling us that the total force that the Russians have in the whole hard of course region numbers 50,000 men. Now that is not remotely enough to conquer the whole of Kharkov region capture harikov and sumi and those kinds of things. Some are saying that it could be enough to capture territory on the border to create a buffer zone there, zone there, which it might be able to do. But to be honest, it looks to me more like a covering force, a defensive force, the kind of force you would put on the border in order to make sure that the ones, any further Ukrainian encroachments across the border. Just saying. So I, you know, I'm not discounting, you know, the fact that the might eventually be a harikov offensive. It's quite plausible that the Russians will concentrate more troops eventually. But if the Ukrainian claims are true, and we're talking about just 50,000 men, then that isn't enough for any kind of offensive, any kind of serious offensive, I would say. And all this talking about what's going on in Harkov is distracting attention away from where an actual Russian offensive is taking place. And which the Russians now are calling an offensive, which is in the central area in Dombas, in the area of Devka or Cheretino. And thereabouts, Krasnogorovka. And then the Ukrainians are being smashed. The Russians are taking territory literally every day. They're apparently advancing, they're gaining control of around 20 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory. Every day, I've just read that in the British media. And, and they're also destroying Ukrainian military units, one after the other. And they're putting themselves in a very, very powerful position, eventually, if they choose to advance towards the nipper in this particular area of the war. So, briefly, there's an important fortified town called Krasnogorovka, heavily fortified by Ukraine before the war. It looks like there's about several hundred Ukrainian troops who now trapped inside one of its districts. The Russians seem to be on the brink of capturing the remainder of this town as well. So it's a town about the same sizes of Devka, fortified to a similar extent. It's surprising. It's attracted as little attention as it has. But as I said, it's about to fall. The Russians are also pushing further westwards from Devka, capturing village after village, breaking through Ukrainian defense lines. Yesterday, we got reports that another Ukrainian defense position in a village called Umanska has just collapsed, and that the Russians have pushed on beyond that. And this is a major advance by the Russians right at the very center of Ukraine's defense systems. If you look at a map and you see where all of this is going on, you see the significance of it right away, absolutely, immediately. And even as this disaster is playing out in central biomass, there's also now this constant chatter from the Ukrainians that if they lose Chassafya, where the Russians are now heavily positioned. And where it looks like they're getting stronger all the time. If they lose Chassafya, they will lose the war. There's a long article today in the Economist by Ukrainian military office circles in one of the units that is defending Chassafya. He says if Chassafya and Konstantinovka, the town immediately to the west of Chassafya, which would be undefendable, by the way, Chassafya itself fell. In those two places are captured by the Russians. There is literally nothing left to stop the Russians reaching the deeper from that direction as well. So back, but Chassafya, Konstantinovka, one axis of advance, probably coming over the next couple of weeks, when the Russians are really ready, and a major Russian advance in central Donbas, which is already underway, and which is basically tearing the guts out of the Ukrainians, where it really matters. Why do they need an offensive target? Just saying. Yeah, and they're going to capture Chassafya. Yeah, they are. Absolutely. Everyone just wants to get a capture Chassafya. So my final question is a Russia that is confident, and I guess it showed during the victory day ceremonies? Absolutely. This was, in my opinion, the really, the real message from the victory day ceremonies. Now, I can let you say, the run up to the victory day ceremonies, we have been hearing report after report, rumor after rumor, fed by the Ukrainians themselves. They'd raised expectations about this, particularly Bodhana, the intelligence chief, that they were going to do something big. It's spectacular in the first two weeks of May to disrupt the Russian holidays, Easter, Putin's inauguration, victory day celebrations. There was lots of talk. They were going to attack the Crimean bridge. Nothing like that has happened. They've launched lots and lots of attacking missiles, and according to the Russians, they managed to shoot down nearly all of them. If Russian reports here are true, and I think they are, by the way, then can I just say this? The attacking has flopped. I don't think this is too much of a no-the-statement. This missile system has been so talked up, and it's not proving very effective at all. But anyway, the Russians know all of this. They know they're winning the war. They know their economy is in a massive upswing. They've stabilized their network of relationships with foreign powers. Putin has just been reelected with a thumping majority on a high turnout. They're breathing with confidence, and you saw this over the course of the victory day celebrations. Now, they were on a relatively small scale this year, which has been consistent with what has been the case throughout the period of the Special Military Operation. So, relatively small-scale victory celebrations. I mean, fewer troops, even last year, and conspicuous absence of tanks trumbling through Red Square. But the Moon, very confident. The soldiers looking very confident. Soldiers from the Special Military Operation there, also looking very confident. Putin meeting with his generals, and delivering a rather short but very, very confident speech from Red Square, in which, by the way, he went out of his way to say that we're in a terrible crisis with the West. But if the West stops being aggressive towards us, then might eventually be a way back. And whilst you in the West are constantly downplaying our critical contribution to the wartime victory in the Second World War, we, on the contrary, have never forgotten, and never will forget, that which you did in defeating the common enemy, the Germans, the Nazis, as well. So, very, very confident speech from Putin, very, very confident mood in Moscow, and as everybody predicted, and as we predicted, by the way, in a recent video we did, he's now reappointed his previous Prime Minister, Mushustin, has once again been reappointed Prime Minister. Why change a team that is delivering so successfully? And so, overall, the mood in Russia, very upbeat, and the fact that they won this poker game over the last week, with the British, the French, and ultimately the Americans, and have manoeuvred them, manoeuvred the West into stating that they will not send troops to Ukraine. In other words, dropping this disastrous idea of strategic immunity. That will have made them more confident still. All right, we will end it there at the Duran.locals.com. We are on rumble odyssey, but shoot telegram rock fin, and Twitter X, and go to the Duran shop, pick up some limited edition merchandise, if the link is in the description box down below. Take care. [MUSIC PLAYING]